A380 flew into Heathrow today

"soxinbox" wrote in message
...
Watching the video points out how not to build an airplane. I can't
believe this thing could be competitively priced with all the
transportation costs incurred because each country had to build a piece of
it. Only a government committee could have come up with that plan.

I suspect that after transportation costs have been averaged over the
lifetime of production, they will be a miniscule percentage of the cost of
the finished product. There are costs to having all of the production on
one site, also. How about the amount of labor that would be needed in one
site? No one place would have that many workers in one place, so that would
cost money, to import the workers, and the infrastructure to support them.
The cost of building that large of a facility would be substantial, also.

I wonder if the tail comes off if you push to hard on the rudder peddles??

If the original "departing rudder pilots" had been trained according to
factory specifications, it would not have happened. Blame does not fall
entirely on the pilots, though.

I understand that the 380 is to have subroutines written into the software,
that will prevent over stressing the fin and rudder.
--
Jim in NC

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
It is too short. Or, rephrased, remember, those huge, beefy wings are
carrying (essentially) a double fuselage load.

And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
as it is?

D.

Soxinbox,

Only a government
committee could have come up with that plan.


I recommend a look at how Boeing does it. You'll be surprised.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Capt.Doug,

And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
as it is?


Long been fixed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
as it is?

Long been fixed.

was it tested?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
"Capt.Doug" wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
It is too short. Or, rephrased, remember, those huge, beefy wings are
carrying (essentially) a double fuselage load.

And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
as it is?

See AIR & SPACE, June/July 2006. "SUPER DUPER JUMBO" by Michael
Milstein, page 22-27.

Bob,

was it tested?


Uhm, not everything in aircraft construction is tested. But I'm sure
you knew that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

was it tested?


Uhm, not everything in aircraft construction is tested. But I'm sure
you knew that.

yep, but I would expect that the "fix" be tested since the wing failed
the first test.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Good view of the flight deck here

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0957790


"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Capt.Doug" wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
It is too short. Or, rephrased, remember, those huge, beefy wings are
carrying (essentially) a double fuselage load.

And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short
of
1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong
enough
as it is?

See AIR & SPACE, June/July 2006. "SUPER DUPER JUMBO" by Michael
Milstein, page 22-27.

Now Thomas, no need to be smug...

Didn't mean to be. It's just a tad annoying for a European to see the 380
dissed at each and every occassion with the most absurd logic just
because something that's the biggest and newest is for once not made in

the US of A.

Who was "dissing" the A380? Personally I think it's an impressive
airplane, regardless of where it's built. I just can't imagine a
stretched version considering the current airframe is certified for up
to 800 pax.